Skip to main content

View Diary: OWS's Misreading of Gandhi in Gaza (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The link doesn't work. (0+ / 0-)

    I would point out, however, that the title "Occupy Wall Street, Not Palestine: OWS Says No To War", as given in your diary, does indeed seem to mention the occupation, whatever the text may or may not say.

    •  The link goes to a page not found (0+ / 0-)

      What is in the link is what was embedded in the anchor tag in this diary, not what is on the OWS site.

      50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

      by TarheelDem on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 12:50:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The title as you describe it seems to be... (0+ / 0-)

        ...correct, according to the image on google, which does not offer up a cached version for the text, just an image of the original OWS page that is no longer found.

        Right under the title, on the original OWS page, was the following image. I believe that this qualifies as a mention of the occupation, whatever the deficencies of the text of the article may or may not have been.

           

        •  You are right about the word "occupation" (0+ / 0-)

          I uploaded the original post here.

          •  Thanks for the link. I did notice a discrepancy... (0+ / 0-)

            ...in the first paragraph between a quote in your diary and the actual text. (My bold of the quoted portions.)

            It is perhaps for this reason that OccupyWallStreet.org decided to give the impression of not clearly taking sides in this situation. Yet, upon careful reading, it is also not difficult to detect a pro-Israeli slant at least as far as the overall narrative is concerned. This can be seen in the very first paragraph of the statement where, in the second sentence, it reads: “We completely condemn the Hamas rocket attacks on civilians, but we also know that retaliation will only beget further violence.” Here, without stating it directly, OWS is regurgitating the narrative of the US and Israeli governments according to which the rockets were the first salvo in the current conflagration. In addition, as a confirmation of this reading, the Israeli response is also carefully characterized as “retaliation.”
            The actual sentence from your link reads as follows. The word which you transcribed as "retaliation" is actually the word war" in the original. (Again, my bold.)
            We completely condemn the Hamas rocket attacks on civilians, but we also know that war will only beget further violence.
            •  That is very intriguing (0+ / 0-)

              Thank you for pointing that out. I had saved the post as soon as I read it yesterday but I only wrote my blog based on what was on the site today before it disappeared. I just found a more recent version of the document cached on Google which actually reflects my quote (here). As you can see from the comments, this version was cached today (my original PDF has no comments. I guess the document was edited – i.e. softened – from the original "war" to "retaliation." I will look for more changes tomorrow.

          •  OK, I did a search on the statement for the... (0+ / 0-)

            ...sequence "ret" and came up with no matches.

            I think that I can confidently state that the neither the word "retaliation" nor the word "retaliate" occure in the entire statement.

          •  Thanks for recovering this (0+ / 0-)

            It seems to be a consensus statement, thus it's attempt at even-handedness.  OWS is a movement that began with certain fundamental principles.  One was the renunciation of the use of violence.  That principle has been the subject of lots of debate at local general assemblies, but the condemnation of Hamas rocket attacks seems to spring from that position.

            The fact that the article has been taken down likely means that a small group jumped the gun on stating a consensus and a larger group pushed back on them.

            Given the current Occupy Sandy activities, I suspect some folks are not inclined to harm the practical work of relief that is having an effect with a public position that is likely to have zero effect in helping the folks in Gaza.

            It's all to easy to get on a moral or political high horse when you have not been a participant in the decision-making that led to an action.

            For whatever reason, the position statement has for now apparently been pulled.  That means that it is in no way an official position of OWS, if it ever was.

            I no longer consider this diary disinformation.  It just got ahead of rapidly moving events withe OWS web site.

            50 states, 210 media market, 435 Congressional Districts, 3080 counties, 192,480 precincts

            by TarheelDem on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 06:41:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  Very good point (0+ / 0-)

      and well taken. Somehow, the post has disappeared from OWS's website. I am looking for an alternative link.

    •  Yes! (0+ / 0-)

      Occupy Wall Street Not Gaza!

      Why does Israel still have so many troops in Gaza?

      Someone should do something about that!

      Look at that dude with them Davey Dukes on!

      by Davey Duke on Tue Nov 20, 2012 at 11:46:55 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site